Keep digging into a very obscure but extremely critical point: how much manual operation does an on-chain system really need to survive long-term.



At this stage of DeFi development, this question is before everyone.

**Short-term projects rely on operations, long-term systems rely on self-consistency**

Looking at most protocols on the market, their operational logic is full of shadows of manual decision-making: parameters need frequent adjustments, strategies change with market conditions, insufficient liquidity leads to incentivization, all to maintain superficial stability through operational actions.

This approach works very quickly when the market is hot. But over a long cycle? Almost 100% will fail.

The reason is simple—humans cannot perform high-frequency management with zero errors over the long term. This is a human limitation, not anyone's fault.

Systems that can truly last a long time share a common trait: they can produce reasonable results with minimal manual intervention, thanks to their mechanisms.

Falcon's obvious impression is this—it’s not about designing "how sophisticated the management is," but about designing "how little frequent management is needed." The difference is huge.

**The core of system design: eliminate nodes that require "manual judgment"**

If you break down Falcon’s operational path, you'll find it deliberately compresses several key decision points:

How assets are collateralized—rule-based.
How risks are priced—rule-based.
How rewards are distributed—rule-based.
How liquidations are triggered—rule-based.

Many protocols choose to leave "flexibility" in these areas to gain short-term efficiency. But this project’s approach is the opposite—using rules to gain stability.

The short-term cost is obvious: flexibility decreases, making it harder to respond quickly to extreme market conditions. But what about long-term benefits? The system can run itself without needing daily parameter adjustments.

This contrast is clear: a system that needs frequent blood transfusions vs. a self-sustaining system. Which one lasts longer? No need to say.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
OnchainSnipervip
· 14h ago
Damn, this is exactly what I've been wanting to say. The projects on the market that change parameters every day are basically just putting band-aids on holes. Falcon's approach is the opposite; standardization really allows for much longer survival.
View OriginalReply0
SillyWhalevip
· 15h ago
Wow, this is exactly what I've been wanting to say. Most projects are just over-medicated operations; they'll get sick sooner or later.
View OriginalReply0
MetaverseMigrantvip
· 15h ago
Wow, this idea is pretty intense... Basically, it's about "removing" people from the system.
View OriginalReply0
ProbablyNothingvip
· 15h ago
Well said, the idea of regularizing for stability indeed goes against human intuition. Most projects are still frequently tuning parameters, and as a result, they become more fragile the more they tune.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-0717ab66vip
· 15h ago
This approach indeed hits the nail on the head. Most protocols are maintained manually, and truly self-consistent systems are scarce.
View OriginalReply0
Ser_APY_2000vip
· 15h ago
This is true system design. Most projects are just operational black holes; as soon as the incentives stop, they immediately die.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)